`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARROWS UP, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OREN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 17, 2019
`___________
`
`
`Before KEVIN W. CHERRY, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
`PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We enter the same transcript in each proceeding. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style heading.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`STEVEN E. JEDLINSKI, ESQUIRE
`ALLISON M. LUCIER, ESQUIRE
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
`150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`steven.jedlinski@hklaw.com
`allison.lucier@hklaw.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JOEL R. MERKIN, ESQUIRE
`KYLE M. KANTAREK, ESQUIRE
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`joel.merkin@kirkland.com
`kyle.kantarek@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on October 17, 2019,
`commencing at 12:58 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
`
`(Proceedings begin at 12:58 p.m.)
` JUDGE CHERRY: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the hearing in
`IPRs 2018-1230 and -1231, I believe. Arrows Up v. Oren Technologies.
` Will the parties please make their appearances.
` MR. JEDLINSKI: Steve Jedlinski of Holland & Knight. With me
`today is Allison Lucier, also of Holland & Knight.
` MR. MERKIN: Joel Merkin of Kirkland & Ellis on behalf of patent
`owner. And with me today is Kyle Kantarek, also of Kirkland & Ellis on
`behalf of patent owner.
` JUDGE CHERRY: Great. Welcome to you both. Welcome to
`everybody.
` This -- petitioner has the burden of proof. You'll have 45 minutes.
` How much time do you want to reserve for rebuttal time?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: I'd like to reserve 10 minutes.
` JUDGE CHERRY: Sure. You go first.
` I don't think there are any motions in this case.
` And then patent owner will have an opportunity to respond, petitioner
`will get its rebuttal time, and then patent owner also has an opportunity to
`reserve surrebuttal time.
` Whenever you're ready.
` MR. JEDLINSKI: I have -- I have physical slides as well, if --
` JUDGE CHERRY: Great. I'm the only one here, so -- but I'll take
`them. Thank you very much.
` MR. JEDLINSKI: Good afternoon.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` Today we're dealing with two patents; the U.S. Patent No. 9,248,772
`and U.S. Patent No. 9,617,066, but referred to as the '772 or '066 patents.
` The two patents are related to one another, as shown on Slide 2. The
`'066 patent is a continuation of the '772 patent. Each is entitled "Method of
`Delivering, Transporting and Storing Proppant for Delivery and Use at a
` Well Site".
` As I'm sure as you're aware by now -- sorry about that -- as I'm sure
`you're aware by now, these patents deal with proppant, which is essentially
`sand, ceramic, or other particulates that are used in connection with fracking
` operations.
` The patents each have the same three figures. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate
`an embodiment of the container, which are relevant to the claim construction
`argument today.
` As noted -- as noted on Slide 3, the container of the Figure 1 has an
`end wall 22, which is recessed inwardly and has a generally convex shape.
`In addition, there is a vent, an inlet, and -- and some other elements shown in
` Figure 1.
` Turning to Slide 4. Figure 3 is shown on this slide. This is --
`illustrates a system of the "present invention of the patents". And as you can
`see, the system generally involves containers, trains, trucks, and loaders and
`unloaders.
` Slide 5 is just a background about the -- the claims in the prior art and
`the different grounds that are at issue in these petitions.
` The validity of the claims in the '772 and '066 patents have been
`challenged using four prior art references; Sheesley, Mintz, Uhryn, and
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
`Hedrick. Our discussion today will be primarily focused on Sheesley and its
`teachings to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
` I preface this now, but the crux of this dispute really revolves around
`whether one is limited to look at essentially the -- the figures of a patent in
`isolation or whether -- or whether or not the -- the reference must be viewed
`in its entirety from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art, as
`petitioner asserts.
` Not surprisingly, it's petitioner's belief that the reference should be
`considered together with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`art, and we do so, in part, citing the Board's decision in the Cisco v. Focal IP
`case.
` In the respective Institution decisions, the Board instituted trials on the
`grounds set forth on Slide 5.
` Turning to Slide 6. Slide 6 is about -- includes a figure from U.S.
`Publication No. 2013-0206415 to Sheesley.
` Sheesley is focused on a modification of a standard cargo container in
`order to carry fracking sand, and Figure 2 on Slide 6 illustrates some of the
`variety of applications that container can be used in to deliver proppant
`from a quarry or, importantly, a source (inaudible).
` Sheesley illustrates how the container can generally be moved via a
`variety of transportation methods, including ship, barge, rail, truck, and in
`and out of storage.
` Turning to Slide 7, we've included two figures of the container
`disclosed in Sheesley.
` Figure 14 is an end view of the container showing the doors and a
`control panel, which are at issue today.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` And then Figure 15 shows a partial sectional view of the container
`illustrating doors on the one end and then -- and then a back wall on the
`other end of the container.
` Slides 8, 9, and 10. We've had background about the other prior art
`references. I think we're going to skip over those for now. I don't think
`those are really at issue, but I have them in there for background in case they
`were necessary.
` So now, turning to Slide 11, this includes kind of a summary of the
`claim limitations that are at issue today.
` In view of the similarity of the terms and the relatedness of the patents,
`some of these arguments cross between the patents and will be addressed
`accordingly.
` Outside of these limitations, patent owner does not dispute that the
`prior art combinations meet or disclose the remaining limitations. We have
`laid out in our petitions how the prior art meets all of those remaining
`elements of the claims.
` Additionally, patent owner has not disputed any of the motions or
`rationale to combine any of the references for those remaining limitations.
` Now that the briefing is done and the evidence is in, and the patent
`owner has failed to call into question those findings of the Board included in
`its Institution decision, instead, the patent owner has focused solely its
`arguments on the purported shortcomings of Sheesley's disclosure of these
`limitations. As a result, my plan for the remaining 20 minutes or so is to
`focus on these five limitations.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` On Slide 12, we simply included a full depiction of the content of
`Claim 1 of the '772 patent calling out a couple of the limitations that we'll be
`dealing with today; the vertically stacking and second different end surface.
` The claims of the '772 patent are directed to a method generally for
`transporting proppant comprising of these steps; vertically stacking the
`containers in close proximity to a rail line, filling those containers, and then
`transferring those containers.
` We do kind of a big overview as well on Slide 13 with respect to Claim
`1 of the '066 patent. Again, we've highlighted a couple of the limitations that
`are at issue; the positioning limitation and then the second different end
`surface.
` Claim 1 of the '066 patent, again, similarly is directed to a method of
`loading and transporting proppant, but it has steps of positioning empty
`containers on a road vehicle, filling those containers, and then transferring
`those containers to a rail site using a roll vehicle and unloader.
` Turning to the first limitation that is at issue in these proceedings is
`second different end surface.
` Claim 1 of the '066 and the '772 patent each include a limitation
`directed to a second different end surface.
` In its preliminary responses, as shown on Slide 15, patent owner
`argued for a claim construction of this limitation, and the Board in its
`Institution decision agreed and set forth a definition of, "Two end surfaces
`that are structurally different, not mere duplication."
` In doing so, the Board cited to the specifications of the '772 and '066
`patents, in part, discussing the convex shape of the one end wall referenced
`in the wall 22 shown on Figure 1 on Slide 15.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` In addition, the patent owner, in its responses, noted that the presence
`of a flow gate 28 and inlet 32 and vent 34, all also shown in Figure 1,
`supported their construction of a second different end wall in connection
`with this structurally different claim construction. This certainly is
`instructive to the disclosures in the prior art, and in particular, in Sheesley.
` Petitioners advance, and the Board in its Institution decisions found,
`that there was a reasonable likelihood that Sheesley disclosed doors on one
`end of its modified container. This is clearly shown in the figures.
` However, patent owner has doubled down on its initial failed
`arguments that Sheesley is entirely silent as to whether or not the doors are
`on the other end of the container.
` First, as shown on Slide 16, Sheesley's disclosure tells a person of
`ordinary skill in the art that the doors are only on "one end thereof".
` The specification states as much. In paragraph 6, when introducing the
`general purpose cargo container, it states, "Doors are fitted at one end."
` Then in paragraph 50, when referring to Figure 9, the doors are noted,
`"On the one end thereof."
` This is also supported by the figures. See, for example, 15 which is on
`Slide 17. Figure 15 is a partial sectional view of the container, and there is
`no indication that that back wall can move like a door. Instead, the back
`wall is shown as a solid wall.
` Patent owner, in its papers and on its demonstrative Slide 23, argues
`that the portrayal of the doors in every figure of Sheesley somehow supports
`their argument; however, this is simply misdirection as these figures all
`show the exact same end of the container, the end with the doors.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` How do we know that? Because it is undisputed that the control panels
`are positioned only in one end wall. You can see this on Slide -- or in Figure
`15 on Slide 17 where the control panel, I believe, 200 is only shown on the
`one end wall.
` And each of these doors in the figures show the control panel;
`therefore, the figures are all depicting the same end wall, the end wall with
`the doors.
` Patent owner's argument that there is some ambiguity or vagueness that
`prohibits an obviousness finding is unsupported. This is not a scenario like
`In re Hughes or In re Turlay where the reference is vague.
` For example, the In re Turlay language at issue was, "A pair of exhaust
`valves are shown at 30 and 31." This phrasing was subject to two different
`interpretations; either there was a pair of valves at each of 30 and 31, or
`there was only one valve at 30 and 31. The language here is clear, "Doors
`are only on one end thereof."
` Furthermore, even assuming patent owner's manufactured ambiguity
`arguments are true, the presence of the control panel on the one end
`confirms that the end walls are structurally different, this is premised on
`patent owner's own claim construction arguments that the flow gate, inlet,
`and vent in only one end wall of the '772 or '066 patent container supported
`its construction of a second different end surface. A vent, for example, is no
`different structurally than a control panel.
` Finally, turning to Slide 18, patent owner's own expert confirmed that
`the control panels and doors were only described in Sheesley on a single
`end.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` JUDGE CHERRY: Was that -- the different end surface, was that
`added during the prosecution or -- or does the patent owner attribute any
`patentable significance to it?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: So we'd have to check with respect to the
`prosecution history. I don't recall there being additional -- of the second
`different end surface.
` But with respect to a discussion about the uniqueness of that second
`different end surface, outside of their -- the discussion of the wall being
`generally convex, I'm unaware of any statement in the specification that
`differentiates why that second different end wall is something special.
` JUDGE CHERRY: Okay. I'm aware that the patent owner put in
`evidence of -- that there are some cargo containers that have two sets of
`doors. Is there -- is there any evidence that indicates that that's all -- all ISO
`cargo containers have two doors, or does the evidence suggest that there can
`be different kinds?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: Yeah. So the evidence in record, and I believe I can
`get the exhibit number, I believe supported -- there are some additional ISO
`containers that show that there's only a single door on one end. And, in fact,
`the exhibits that patent owner have supplied that suggests there are a
`container with doors on both ends, it actually says it's an alternative, and
`when you look at what that alternative is provided by that manufacturer, it's
`a container with only doors on one end.
` So it is consistent with the availability – having doors on only one end
`is consistent with the availability of ISO containers, which Sheesley is a
`modification of in the marketplace.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` Turning to Slide 20. We're going to move on to the next limitation,
`which is the positioning limitation of Claim 1 of the '066 patent.
` And this element basically requires two things; positioning of plurality
`of empty containers on a trailer of a road vehicle.
` Turning to Slide 22. Sheesley teaches that its containers can be
`stacked on mode of transportation. This is clearly shown in Figure 5 of a
`railcar. And it shows the railcar -- or it shows -- it also demonstrates that the
`containers, when they were stacked, were empty.
` Sheesley further explains that its modified containers may be placed on
`alternative modes of transportation, not just the railcars shown in Figure 5.
`And one of those modes is importantly a truck, as you can see on Slide 20 --
`on Slide 21.
` On Slide 22, Sheesley also teaches how the containers can move
`through all these normal modes of transportation. For example, in Figure 2
`demonstrates that the source, or quarry 30, can provide proppant to any of
`these different variety of methods of transportation, and this is an illustrate
`of some of the -- the method of getting the proppant to the well site.
` So Sheesley further explains that modified containers cannot just be
`placed on, for example as shown in Figure 5, the -- the railcar, but can also
`be moved in these other varieties of methods of transportation.
` As an initial matter, patent owner -- owner incorrectly states in its sur-
`reply that, "Petitioner admits that Sheesley does not actually disclose this
`limitation," and you can find that on the Demonstrative Slide 51.
` And they do so by citing petitioner's use of the word "could", and in
`fact the POSITA reading Sheesley would understand that the containers
`could be filled with sand when positioned on the flatbed trailer.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` While there's nothing necessarily wrong with the inclusion of "could"
`being one of the embodiments that is disclosed in Sheesley, but furthermore,
`how Mr. Schaaf's declaration actually states that a POSITA would
`understand that Sheesley discloses, "Positioning empty container on a truck
`to be filled and transported," without that "could" language to alleviate any
`concerns that patent owner might have.
` Here, Mr. Schaaf, an undisputed person of ordinary skill in the art,
`does exactly that.
` Patent owner seems to imply that Sheesley teaches a first phase
`wherein the containers are filled with proppant, and then a discrete second
`phase wherein the containers are placed on vehicles for transport. This is
`plainly incorrect, and Figure 5 of Sheesley, for example, shows the empty
`containers being filled with proppant after being placed on a mode of
`transportation.
` Moreover, Sheesley makes it clear that these containers may be filled
`at any point in the supply chain, which includes the rail site.
` JUDGE CHERRY: So with respect to the "could", you're not saying
`that someone could modify Sheesley, you're saying that this is one of the
`embodiments that Sheesley discloses a person of ordinary skill could use,
`right?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: Correct. It's not necessarily saying you could take
`the teaching of Sheesley and then do something else to it. It's one of the
`teachings within Sheesley, so it's one of the options it has. So he could, as a
`person of ordinary skill in the art when reading Sheesley would understand
`that.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` Moving to Slide 24, we're going to move to the next couple limitations,
`which we refer as to the vertically stacking limitations.
` The first is found in Claim 1 of the '772 patent and requires vertically
`stacking a plurality of empty proppant containers in close proximity to a rail
`spur, and the second is found in a dependent claim which requires vertically
`stacking the second plurality of proppant-filled containers in close proximity
`to the rail spur.
` Both of these limitations require stacking containers in close proximity
`to a rail spur. In the first instance, the containers are empty and set to be
`filled by a source, which is a railcar, and in the second instance the
`containers have been filled by the source, the railcar, and then stacked.
`Sheesley discloses these limitations to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
` Turning to Slide 25. Sheesley teaches that the modified containers
`may be stacked while empty or filled with sand. And in fact, we note that
`during prosecution of the '066 patent, the examiner found that Sheesley
`disclosed vertically stacking containers in place, and that's at Exhibit 1011 at
`page 33.
` And specifically, Figure 3 of Sheesley offers a pictorial illustration of
`the stackability of modified cargo containers with or without sand therein.
`And then further goes on that the modified frack containers can be stacked
`whether in transit or at the frack site.
` Sheesley also teaches that these empty containers may be filled with
`proppant in the stacked container. This is clearly shown in Figure 5.
` And while Figure 5 specifically portrays these containers being filled
`on a railcar, Sheesley makes clear that the containers may be filled at any
`location in the supply chain, which includes at the rail site.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` And as petitioner's experts opined, an auger could be used to provide
`proppant from the railcar, which is the source in this claim, into proppant
`containers which would necessarily be nearby or in proximity to that rail
`spur.
` And that's at paragraphs --
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: Counselor?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: Yes.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: Counsel. So as I understand patent owner's
`position, I think they would agree that Figure 5 shows that the containers are
`on -- up on the rail spur, but they take the position that Sheesley does not
`show that the containers are in close proximities to the rail spur.
` What's your response to that?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: So the response is, is that there's a teaching in
`Sheesley that the -- that the source could be a rail -- could be a railcar. So
`not containers with proppant on a railcar, but the source of proppant material
`could be a railcar, which would necessarily mean, when you need to load the
`empty containers, those containers need to be nearby the railcar. And you
`would use the teachings of Sheesley, which shows using that auger to deliver
`proppant material from a source into an empty proppant container nearby.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: So is your position then that Figure 5 does not
`show vertically stacked containers in close proximity to a rail spur?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: Correct. That is not necessary -- our position is not
`that the containers on the mode of transportation is necessarily in close
`proximity to a rail spur.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: Why is that?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: Well, Your Honor, I think --
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: I mean, if you're on top of the rail spur, aren't
`you as near to the rail spur as you possibly can get?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: So Your Honor --
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: Isn't that in close proximity?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: Yeah. So, I mean -- so our – I guess, so our initial
`position in our petition was that not -- that was not necessarily the case.
` When patent owner made that challenge in its response of trying to
`differentiate between the "on" and "in close proximity to", we actually
`adopted that and said, yes, you know, that is now a claim construction
`argument, and furthermore, Figure 5 would show when -- when the railcar is
`on the rail -- rail spur, it is in -- necessarily in close proximity to.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: I didn't catch that.
` If the containers are on the rail spur, as shown in Figure 5, are they in
`close proximity to the rail spur or are they not?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: So we think that distinguishment is -- is improper
`because that's a claim construction argument that wasn't -- and necessarily
`"in close proximity" would include "in".
` My point was that in our initial petition, we weren't necessarily saying
`that. You know. What our expert was saying was that the auger would
`provide proppant from that railcar source --
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: So -- so let's back up. What is your position?
`Is a vertically stacked container on a rail spur, as shown in Figure 5, is that
`in close proximity to the rail spur or is it not?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: So petitioners -- that is in close proximity to a rail
`spur. But also --
` JUDGE WOODS: You altered it.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` MR. JEDLINSKI: -- but also --
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: What's your support for that?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: So our support for that -- like I said, so in our initial
`petition, that was not the approach.
` When -- when the patent owner attempted to argue and differentiate
`and take our understanding that we are trying to say Figure 5 was on the rail
`spur, we actually said, you're right. Figure 5 is shown on a rail spur, and
`there is no difference, or in close proximity necessarily encompasses on a
`rail spur, and so that, too, as we set forth in our -- in our reply, would
`necessarily demonstrate it.
` But in our initial petition, we were relying upon the expert of saying
`containers would be stacked in proximity to the -- to a railcar, which would
`be delivering that proppant to it using an auger.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: So just so that I'm clear, petitioner's position
`is that the -- the term "in close proximity to a rail spur" also covers
`containers that are on the rail spur.
` MR. JEDLINSKI: Correct.
` There are -- there are two teachings of – of Sheesley; the one
`embodiment which has it on the rail spur being filled, and then furthermore,
`as petitioner's expert, Mr. Schaaf, has said, that it would also teach him that
`these containers could be -- could be stacked near that rail spur because that
`rail spur would necessarily be that source of proppant that would be filling
`that container, as well.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: And -- and where is that in Mr. Schaaf's
`declaration --
` MR. JEDLINSKI: It's --
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: -- or deposition testimony?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: So that's in his declaration, Exhibit 1002, at
`paragraph 68. And that's in Exhibit 1002 of the '772 patent proceedings, to
`be clear.
` So moving on. Patent owner attacks these disclosures by trying to look
`at what they teach in isolation rather than the holistic approach, let alone
`from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill.
` For example, patent owner improperly isolates Figure 3's teaching of
`stacking containers to well sites because paragraph 83 reads, "At the well
`site to be fracked, modified containers can be stacked as shown in Figure 3."
` But this statement simply emphasizes that the stackability portrayed in
`Figure 3 may be implemented at the well site, as well.
` And Sheesley's primary characterization of Figure 3, "a pictorial
`illustration of the stackability of modified cargo containers with or without
`sand therein," contains no such spacial limitation.
` Sheesley goes on to explain that, "The modified frack containers may
`be stacked in any conventional means, either while in transit or at the frack
`site."
` By focusing myopically on the particular figures and a statement in
`isolation, patent owner misses the larger teachings of Sheesley to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art that because Sheesley's containers may be stacked
`while empty and may be stacked while at any point in the supply chain,
`including at the rail site, they may be stacked while empty in close proximity
`to that rail site, as well.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` So taken together, these disclosures teach that Sheesley's containers
`may be stacked empty or filled at any point in the supply chain, including at
`the rail line. And indeed, to fill containers at a rail line, empty containers
` must be present, in close proximity thereto.
` Turning to Slide 27. This depicts Claim 4 of the '772 patent and the
`conveying proppant to a road vehicle limitation.
` This claim depends on Claim 1 and requires, in part, "Conveying the
`proppant from one or more of the plurality of proppant-filled containers to
`one or more proppant-transporting road vehicles on a second conveyer."
` Turning to Slide 28. Sheesley renders this limitation obvious.
`Sheesley teaches that the proppant could be unloaded from the filled
`containers by opening the lower hatch, unloading the proppant onto a
`conveyor, and which then directs that proppant to a blender.
` Sheesley also teaches unloading proppant from the modified container
`to a bulk sand container at the frack site.
` In light of these disclosures, petitioner's expert, Mr. Schaaf, understood
`-- and so this is an obviousness argument -- that proppant could just be -- as
`easily be unloaded from the filled containers by opening that lower hatch,
`unloading proppant onto a conveyor, and conveying that proppant to a road
`vehicle.
` This is particularly true when Sheesley discloses use of a conveyor to
`unload containers, and that those containers may be emptied into a bulk
`proppant container such as a SandKing.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: What's the basis for Mr. Schaaf's testimony?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: So he is looking at -- he's combining, saying look,
`Sheesley teaches me that I can unload this container onto a conveyor and
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
`direct that proppant to a frack -- to a frack container, like the SandKing.
`Therefore, I could also -- it would teach him that he could also unload it to a
`rail vehicle, as well, to another mode of transportation.
` And so the general teaching of being able to put it to a vehicle, such as
`a Frack King -- or a SandKing would also teach him the same.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: Are you saying that the SandKing is a road
`vehicle?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: No. So -- not necessarily. So we're saying the
`SandKing teaches him -- being able to deliver proppant or unload proppant
`on a conveyor and deliver it to a SandKing teaches him that he could do the
`same thing necessarily with a road vehicle.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: Are you relying on anything else in Sheesley
`for that?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: No. Outside of the disclosures that we reference in
`Mr. Schaaf's declaration, that -- that is what we're relying upon in support of
`that. In connection with the teachings of a person of ordinary --
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: What -- what paragraph --
` MR. JEDLINSKI: Sorry about that.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: -- what paragraph are you – in his declaration
`are you referring me to?
` MR. JEDLINSKI: I can get you that -- that quote on rebuttal. I don't
`have it here.
` Actually, I think it's -- going back, it's Exhibit 1002, paragraph 121,
`and it's at the end on Slide 28. I believe he goes on to say that.
` JUDGE KORNICZKY: Are you relying on anything in Figure 1 -- in
`discussion of Figure 1 in Sheesley?
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01230 (Patent 9,248,772 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01231 (Patent 9,617,066 B2)
`
` MR. JEDLINSKI: I have to -- I can double check, but I don't -- I don't
`believe Mr. Sheesley, in his express discussion of this, is pointing to Figure 1
`in the prior art methods of transporting material in connection with this
`limitation.
` So alternatively, if Sheesley alone doesn't necessarily teach a person of
`ordinary skill in the art this conveying limitation, this limitation is rendered
`obvious by Sheesley in view of Uhryn.
` Uhryn teaches unloading proppant from container 30 into a proppant
`transfer device, and that proppant transfer device may comprise of one or
`more of a hopper and a conveyor.
` You can see that hopper on 60 leading to -- to the conveyor on 58 on
`Slide 29 of -- of the demonstrative exhibits.
` Uhryn teaches -- further, Uhryn explains that the conveyor 62 may be
`moved -- could move proppant into a mountain mover 64, which is also
`shown in Figure 3 reproduced on Slide 29, and which that -- that mountain
`mover 64 notably has -- has wheels on it.
` As such, patent owner's assertion that Frac Sander cannot transport
`vehicles over a road is inaccurate. In light of these disclosures, petitioner's
`expert, Mr. Sch
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
